Hazards of PvP: Character Assassination

The Wikipedia entry (somewhat paraphrased in this instance) describes character assassination in the following way:

Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, social group, or nation. Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals to cause their rejection by their community, family or members of their living or work environment.

• raising false accusations
• planting and fostering rumours
• manipulating information to present an untrue negative picture of the targeted person
• exaggeration or misleading half-truths about the subject's morals or actions

For all of those who are playing Vampire games, in particular, character assassination is the ideal and most severe form of punishment available to harpies.  The trick for pulling off a character assassination is to divorce yourself from the rumours you're starting wherever you can so that it appears that "everyone knows" about these facts (therefore making them appear more true), ensuring that the rumours and accusations are difficult to disprove so that people don't look down on you instead, and that the rumours themselves are the sorts of things the other characters will care about (otherwise they will ignore them or, conversely, think more of the person targeted).

In terms of how character assassination can go wrong ... on it's own, it's not as psychologically hazardous in my experience as some of the other options on its own.  It *can* be, if the rumours are particularly nasty and taboo (i.e. accusing someone else's character of being a paedophile) but normally, in and of itself, the rumour mongering isn't particularly problematic unless compounded with some of the other issues we touch upon. 

This is probably because it's so difficult to pull off and because in the early stages the player can be quite involved with fighting the rumours and so the conflict can be engaging rather than disempowering.  After all, there's a chance that the rumour which you start which should be canonically hazardous either seems absurd to the other players (whose brains power their character's opinions anyway) or just doesn't particularly bother them. 

After all, players are motivated by their enjoyment and satisfaction (even if that means working through painful emotions), and if the target of the assassination is a character they enjoy having in the game then they will subconsciously find excuses to justify their own beliefs about the character, discarding rumours they don't like and embracing the ones they do.

Which means, unfortunately, that where a character assassination is successful it is often taken as a reflection of the *player's* own failings in character generation because they would be protected somewhat against the attacks if people liked having their character around.

This, again, needs to be dealt with on the meta level.  The players need to understand and agree with the major social sins of the group in order to keep this as a viable in-game tactic rather than an accidental meta-game one.  If someone is believed to be boon broken in the game, then the players may need to consciously kerb their own interest in the character enough to allow them to be properly affected by it.

The main problem that can be faced even through this tactic is that the final step in a successful character assassination is a virtually unplayable character.  That's why they call it an "assassination" because, by the end of it, life isn't really worth living for that individual.  No player likes to be targeted by a campaign which they cannot overturn and which ends in a lingering 'life worse than death' state where they need to retire their character ... especially if the other players don't believe they should be able to retire the character to 'avoid repercussions'.

Therefore the same techniques should be used to help the player through it and to remind the player that people are not targeting them, they're targeting the character.  In this light, the player should be able to retire the afflicted character.  After all, once you make an absolute win, there's no real need to keep the character around anymore, is there?  It won't be fun for the player and anything else you do would be merely kicking the comatose puppy.  (This isn't to say that a motivated player can't continue with the character in an aim to turn it around - only that it shouldn't be forced.)

If the player is expected to continue with their character so that they can't "avoid the repercussions of their actions" then ask yourself about the ethics of Your Own Actions.  If it were truly about teaching the player, and you really thought it would work, then why wouldn't you be happy to let the newly taught player have a fresh start?  And if it's not going to work, aren't there better ways to perform damage control or teach the player then make them the centre of a negative loop? 

Confused, frustrated, and upset players flail wildly.  That's not going to improve your game.

Character assassination shouldn't be used as a form of player punishment from other players anymore than a Storyteller should crush a character because they don't like a player's play style.

NB: If you want a player to see their own character's character assassination through, then convince them about how much fun it would be for them *as a player*.  They get to be the moral of the story, get loads of spotlight, and have a conflict to fight against that will turn out very poorly for you if they win.  If you don't want them to know it was you, say that you're impressed by the good roleplay that's coming from it and get any of the other players you know who sincerely like the plotline to also provide support to the player.

 If you're happy to make it a rivalry, or your character is openly trying to assassinate their character, see if you can make a pact not to tell other *players* which is true and which is false.  Yes, that pact benefits you the most but it also makes for a more interesting story and some players may be happy to do that simply to see who, if anyone, manages to figure out the truth of their targeted character's claims.

Hazards of PvP: Destabilisation

So let's look at one potential technique a PvP player in a political arena might use against another PvP player, good old destabilisation (Wikipedia description below):

The word destabilisation can be applied to a wide variety of contexts such as attempts to undermine political, military or economic power. In a psychological context it is used as a technique in brainwashing and abuse to disorient and disarm the victim. For example, in the context of workplace bullying, destabilisation applied to the victim may involve:

• failure to acknowledge good work and value the victim's efforts
• allocation of meaningless tasks
• removal of areas of responsibility without consultation
• repeated reminders of blunders
• setting up to fail
• shifting of goal posts without telling the victim
• persistent attempts to demoralise the victim.

While most PvP players enjoy the cut and thrust of politics, imagine running up against a cunning PvPer who runs a skilful campaign involving these tactics against your own character.  In fact this technique is best used by a superior in your hierarchy, who might be expected to be your ally, like a jealous sire, a vindictive liege lord or simply a high status person within your social group, might do all of these things in a vampire game.  How would you feel if you were subjected to this every session at the game?

If you answered, "I'd be cool with it", I'll bet you have put tactics in place to ensure that it remained okay.  Perhaps:

"I'd be cool with it since my nemesis would be a friend of mine and we'd make a point to meet up outside of game for some positive experiences to remind ourselves that we're not actually out to get each other as people."

and / or...

"I'd be cool with it, though I might be shaking by game's end, as I have a post-game ritual where I systematically 'unskin' the character through ritualistically getting into / out of costume while listening to my character's theme song / songs I personally like and then destressing at the end with a warm shower."

and / or...

"I have an arrangement with my nemesis player that we shake hands before and after session and that if s/he's particularly cruel to me, s/he makes a point to buy me a drink after game or, if s/he already knows a terrible plan is in the works, s/he bakes me cupcakes."

and / or...

"I'd be pre-warned if something truly horrible was about to happen and I'm given veto rights if it's likely to be personally traumatic or character changing."

and / or

"My organisation is full of caring and compassionate people who'd make sure I was okay at the after game debriefing / event.  There'd be lots of hugs and plenty of time to debrief and unwind."

I'd imagine few people would be emotionally okay with a persistent campaign against their character, or even a full session of such actions, unless they had something to keep it all in check and to remind themselves that the person isn't out to get them.  What techniques would you, or have you, used to ensure that this PvP tactic remained fun rather than pushing you out of the game?

Hazards of PvP: Objectification

The Wikipedia entry has a lot to say about objectification, including that a person is objectified if they are used:

• as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);
• as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);
• as if owned by another (ownership);
• as if interchangeable (fungibility);
• as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);
• as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity).

Now a person might be objectified on either an individual or a group basis.  Each has it's own problems and possibilities.

On an individual level, the player might be individually treated as an object because of a political attack set to undermine them which tries to paint them as little more than or due to a more powerful character's prejudices, or due to the individual belonging to an objectified group that has low representation in the game (i.e. being the only female in a realistic medieval LARP or being the only ghoul in a vampire game).

The benefits of objectification for the power players involved is that those who are objectified have their meaningful choices slowly strangled out of them, which is great for an enemy or a rival.

There are also benefits for the player of the objectified character.

Objectification may be a new experience for the player, especially in an exaggerated form.  When reversed so that those most often in power positions are now objectified (such as a medieval game with a gendered role reversal, it can be a powerful teaching tool and growth experience for everyone involved.  While a valid tool for a short-term or weekend campaign, this may still prove tiring in the long-term if the objectification is intense as it is, by its very nature, disempowering.

It can, in the short-term, provided significant protections to new players, such as where a new player might choose to play an unreleased childe of a vampire.  The more experienced player takes responsibility for training and protecting them, including taking the flak of any missteps, while the new player knows that their position is temporary.  Generally, though, these positions are not truly and pointedly 'objectified' outside of the books as the childe is more often seen and treated as a learner than as an interchangeable commodity with no will of its own.

Some people may actually enjoy the challenge, such as those playing ghouls, though in this case it's often good to have an 'out'.  This might be an easy status shift (i.e. a ghoul can become a vampire) but if it is a permanent and unchangeable identity trait then the player may need to create a new character to find a more enabling role.

Be wary of automatically objectified group identifiers which players share in real life unless you're willing to let players cross dress to get out of it, especially when considering a campaign.  It can also be deeply unpleasant, even triggering, to face discrimination both inside your game world and outside of it.  Does your fantasy land or science fiction game really need to make all black people slaves?  Couldn't it have green slaves or genetically modified slaves?

So what's the difference between objectifying a group and an individual?  Well, a group provides a sense of cultural identity where you can feel empowered.  It also allows for all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle underdog conspiracies and group rebellions.  Imagine a vampire game where half of the players are playing ghouls.  Regardless of any intent on the part of the game designers, those ghouls will now create a power bloc of their own even if they are never acknowledged as a faction.  In fact, there would be a secondary game of power and influence within the ghouls themselves which the vampires might not even know exists.  That sounds far more fun than playing the sole canonically silent and disregarded ghoul in a room full of predators.

Groups can also objectify each other even when neither holds a higher status position.  Two enemy tribes might view members of the other group as interchangeable non-entities who can be killed or enslaved merely to obtain more land or crops.  While group members may identify a few important out-group names and faces, they likely won't be thinking of their enemies in terms of being someone else's child with their own hopes, dreams and fears, just like anyone else.

These kinds of in-character schisms can make for some very deep and interesting roleplaying so long as the game is either large enough to allow them to avoid each other or if the objectification is subtle enough to avoid causing *too* much offence.  A vampire game which includes a lot of clannism might have some of the subtle varieties of objectification.  Gangrel are all merely dogs, afte rall.

Regrettably, objectification can also cross the line between players and not just in a discriminatory fashion based on age, gender, etc. 

A player might come to objectify the other players, seeing them as merely being actors for that players' own enjoyment or as faceless props who can be pushed into ideal directions on an out of character level.  The player might feel that their own needs and desires are paramount and that any player who doesn't cater to them is a cold-hearted bastard. 

More commonly, they might just forget that the other player is a *person* first and foremost and they may do or say something insensitive, unfairly take up the spotlight, or ruin another player's chances to do *that one thing* they've spent the entire campaign building up to do, without any thought about how that might make the other player feel.

They might see GM as standing for Game Machine, becoming upset or even irate when the GM doesn't want to take a call about the game at a particular time, or who fail to deliver downtimes on time one week.  They might also see them as tools or props who can be worked against each other, and against the other players, through a clever pattern of flattery and lies.  After all, if one GM falls to burnout then another one will rise up to take their place, right?  Right?

This form of out of character objectification needs to be dealt with promptly, sometimes by literally stating your own humanness and your own rights and needs in a fair and reasonable way which also takes in account their own needs.  If they persist, sometimes you need to show them the door.

So how have you found objectification in your roleplaying games?  Got any good stories on it?

Hazards of PvP

I've been looking into issues of bullying and harassment in various organisations to try to find a way to limit their presence in the LARP group I'm helping to set up.  While the stories can be fascinating exercises of the imagination, no less valid than any other art form or hobby in our lives, they still should be a source of satisfaction and enrichment for all those involved.  When bullying enters the equation, the source is tainted and sometimes destroyed.  While researching the culture of bullying, however, I noticed that many of the listed techniques in the Wikipedia entry all cover successful PvP tactics that can be used within the game itself (objectification, character assassination, etc.).

This article isn't intended to lambast PvP games as unsustainable bully-prone activities that will automatically become toxic to all concerned.  It's intended to analyse why it can sometimes go that way and how to reduce those causes so that we can enjoy PvP games, even political ones (which have the highest emotional risks attached to them).

I may add more articles to this series but for now it will include:

Objectification
Humiliation
Destabilisation

PS. I'm not done with the demon lore write ups.  They're just taking awhile to get to the point where I'm happy with them ... especially Lore of Patterns, which is up next.

One Mistake Does Not A Conspiracy Make

Players are a paranoid lot.  It's understandable.  Their entertainment involves a certain level of vulnerability and trust.  The Game Master can call, at any time, that rocks will fall and everybody dies and game reality shifts accordingly.  So a little bit of suspicion is understandable.  Sometimes the players are right to be suspicious. 

Sometimes the Game Master does something that will cause a lot of problems for a player, showers one player with a lot of benefits, or throws a GMPC into a hero position (which is always problematic because a GMPC, by its definition, cannot truly fail if the GM declares it so nor can the GMPC be blindsided by events - a quality NPC can and will, if the story demands it).

A lot of players are a little too eager to see intent behind all of these actions.  The motivations they level against their GMs is that they are meaningfully trying to show off their power and dominance against the poor unsuspecting players.  Now this does happen, absolutely, but surely it can't be so common as to swallow up almost every GM under the sun? 

If you listen to LARP players, in particular, you'd think that every LARP GM in existence was just on a power trip out to destroy them.  In any particular LARP you'll find a handful of players, at the very least, who regard their GMs with growing concern.

Now I'm not saying that the GM's haven't legitimately screwed up or screwed them over.  I'm just doubting that every GM (especially LARP GM) are out to boost their buddies and slam down everything else, all while gleefully neglecting downtimes and crushing their players every hope and dream.  There are other motives for poor decisions.

What about an overeager GM who simply had a "really cool idea" they wanted to showcase that happened to disempower their players because it really would have fitted a movie better?

What about an inexperienced or poorly supported GM who is easily wowed by a dominant player's rapid speech and seemingly positive ideas?

What about a submissive GM who takes the "Just Say Yes" principle so far the game becomes a mess?

What about the possibility that the player's idea which the GM crushed was a really bad idea, either because it would have caused negative consequences the player wouldn't have enjoyed or because it would have ruined everyone else's fun?

What about the harassed GM who has been hassled by another player and assumes the worst in you because you happen to be next or asking after similar issues?

What about a busy GM whose mind was on a dozen different things at once who simply made a bad call?

What about a GM who legitimately believes their friends happen to be the better roleplayers because they're not wise enough to realise that we are all biased towards looking positively at the actions of our friends?  (This is not an excuse for their behaviour.  It just means that they're being ignorant rather than malicious).

What about a GM who responds badly because your tone of voice or body language indicated that you thought they were a selfish idiot who only wanted to ruin their game?  (Perhaps because you did approach them with that expectation).

What about the burnt out GM who is only running the game out of a sense of obligation and therefore neglects any duty that isn't absolutely necessary to the game occurring?

What about a GM who isn't out to get you but isn't in a position to explain that there's another PC gunning for you and that they're merely the messenger because that would ruin the PvP element in the game?

What about the GM who has a sarcastic tone of voice because they are inwardly very defensive anyway?

I'm not saying that all of these motives are pure or forgivable, some are anything but.  I'm just trying to say that GMs are people, too, capable of making mistakes, having dumb ideas or simply being ignorant. 

While some GMs may be harassment loving bullies, most are not, and if YOUR GM makes only a few mistakes, then it's a good idea to thank them profusely for being awesome 99% of the time and, when a mistake is made, either give them the benefit of the doubt and either forgive them or talk to them about how something looked or made you feel so that they know where the pitfalls lie.

In other words, one mistake or judgement that lands against you doesn't mean there is a malicious conspiracy against you.  When people approach their GMs with a conspiracy in mind, then yes, the GM is naturally going to feel attacked and defensive because their very credibility *is* being threatened and once that is gone it's pretty much gone for good.

Creating a Demon, Part 3

SHAITAN

The Avenger

Shaitan snuck away at one point to visit her old village project only to find that the three villages were struck with a terrible cancerous plague that kept them alive (as the cells kept replicating) but in perpetual anger and pain as their bodies twisted and bloated, their children wracked with a pulsing corruption beneath the skin similar to what happened to his own skin when the weapons were implanted.  This was the Duchess of Knives' revenge against her.

The two Fell Knight lovers who had served Shaitan were nowhere to be seen.  Shaitan learned that Shaeotiel hadn't been seen since a few weeks after Shaitan's first experimental procedure while Arekhala had fled to the Iron Legion where she campaigned to have Shaeotiel found.

From that point on, more than at any other point, Shaitan was consumed with a need for revenge.  While before Shaitan used any opportunity to lash out at the Silver Legion, now Shaitan actively sought out those opportunities, sowing discontent by the cunning application of truth or simply through insinuation that a fallen's worse fears were true.  Since the Silver Legion were often quite brutal and paranoid, it didn't take much imagination for them to feel betrayed.  Shaitan naturally took quite a bit of glee in losing glamorously during the Long March in a way that assisted their success in securing a number of human settlements.  Shaitan was knocked down to Fell Knight for that (and suitably tortured) but he took later opportunities in the war to show her value to the Ebon Legion and thus was re-instated at her previous rank.

SHAITAN

The Symbol

Shaitan had set himself up to be the symbol for what others should avoid becoming.  She took risks that no one else would have taken because, in the end, he hoped to be destroyed.  Her words were more often true than false and within that lay the seeds of a legend ... at least in a few people's minds.  (The next bits are of the Storyteller's invention).

Viriel, an Iron Legion defiler, was one such person.  Seemingly struck by the cruelties in the world and desperate to prove that redemption was possible, Viriel focused all of her efforts on Shaitan.  She would occasionally creep close to his camp, spending time in quiet observation or conversation, and while Shaitan at first chased her off - thinking her a spy - later they actually spoke.  Viriel believed in Shaitan, truly believed, and wished with all her heart to save him.

When Shaitan froze a small battlefield by screaming out his horror that this is what they had all fallen to, sibling against sibling, the silence was broken by Grifiel (enraged at the brief shaking of his worldview) charging toward Shaitan and ripping off her wings before flinging her to the ground.  Viriel raced between them and begged for Shaitan's life, finally dragging a barely conscious Shaitan away to an Iron Legion fortress where she convinced the others to let her tend him.  Yet when Shaitan finally returned to full strength (though still wingless), Shaitan slashed her back with his sharpened tail, outraged that she had denied him the opportunity to die.  Ashamed of what he had done, Shaitan fled, leaving her shocked and confused.

SHAITAN

The Lost

Yet all things couldn't last forever.  The war ended with the angels capturing all of the remaining fallen and holding them by a portal which opened out into the Abyss itself.  When Shaitan passed through that portal, he felt something unexpected.

Relief.

The war was over.  She could be at peace.  There was nothing more to do, nothing more to fail, nothing more to fear.  Shaitan sat in the blank expanse of sensory deprivation, hearing only the wails of his brethren, and simply retreated inwardly.  In all of the eons within the pit, Shaitan never spoke, simply dreaming her way through the screams of hell.  For a time, his old vassals would scrabble and beg and whine and wail at her, but after awhile even they began to drift away ... mostly.

Part 1 can be found here.
Part 2 can be found here.

Creating a Demon, Part 2

SHAITAN

The Bioweapon

Once physically invaded in such a way, her very essence twisted and tainted, he was thrown into a cell where she shivered and trembled as the infection took hold.  The pain and rage itched through his very being and for a time all she could think of was her urge to die.  Somehow she managed to pull through this time by praying to her brothers and sisters, his erstwhile allies in the Silver Legion, the best and the brightest of the heroic Iron Legion, and even Lucifer himself.  No one answered.  Her invocations were cut off by the wards within the prison.  Yet even knowing this, he couldn't help be torn by bitterness, hope and a terrible feeling of betrayal.

Finally she was brought out of the cell and given a series of terrible choices.  The infection needed time to fester but it also needed food so that it could solidify its hold, or so they say.  Doubtless they also wanted to break his spirit so that she would do whatever they wanted him to do.  So they forced him through a battery of tests, many of which designed to force obedience, such as demanding she slay dozens of humans (or else they would perform fouler experiments on them in front of her).  She knew that there would be humans earmarked for those experiments anyway, that by killing those they demanded, he was only passing the tests onto others she didn't see, but refusal brought pain to him and to them and she just couldn't cope with that.

At one point, once they had thought her spirit was thoroughly broken, he was paraded through the Palace of Sighs and introduced as an obedient bioweapon to Belphegor.  The sights she saw within that bastion chilled her to the bone but it also gave him strength.  She would pretend to obey for now but soon he would be able to escape.  For every Belphegor in this world, there was a Belphigor (the twisted Fallen's Iron Legion twinsouled brother).

While he was being transported back from the Palace of Sighs, the group were attacked by Loyalist Angels.  Eager to see her weapon in action, the Duchess of Knives ordered Shaitan's release from his chains.  Shaitan performed admirably, using everything at his disposal to impress the others and responding to her orders with hair trigger precision.  Then, when he saw an out, she took it, flying quickly away from them once the Loyalists were down.

The Duchess of Knives smirked and called down the syllables of Shaitan's true name to bring him to bear but ... the experiment had changed her irrevocably and altered his name.  The Duchess' arrogance bought her time and he managed to escape.

SHAITAN

Pleas for Help

Shaitan fled to the Iron Legion, expecting that they would help her if anyone would.  They were the kindly ones, those who didn't break under pressure, the paladins of goodness.  He knew he looked like a monster.  Her appearance had been, for a time, that of a golden angel with a face and body which subtly shifted through different guises, male and female, in representation of how she had to be able to take others perspectives into account. 

When the experiment had been conducted upon him, the sharp teeth had been driven into her pearly whites, causing little pieces of remnant enamel to float about the destruction points.  Purplish black lines of corruption had seeped beneath her skin in lines from teeth, nails, horns and tail.  Now her that purplish black corruption covered her body, providing a mere golden gleam in representation of what he once was, and her face had stiffened into a pale mask-like form and it was so very hard for her to change her expressions.  Only her wings remained largely golden, the sign of her desperate hope for freedom, but lines of corruption still dripped across her feather tips.

The Fallen she passed on her way to the Iron Citadel stopped and gawked, shocked and disgusted by the sight of this mutilated angel.  He felt their horrified glances as hammer blows, felt their judgement, their assumptions.  What was she now?  What was he worth?

Before she could reach the Iron Citadel, he was approached by a Silver Legionnaire, a lesser female angel called Reotel who had once taken messages from the Duchess of Knives.  Terrified and enraged, Shaitan attacked the fallen, leaving grievous gouges across her flesh, and had to be hauled off by a dozen Iron Legionnaires.  Shocked and horrified by Shaitan's actions and thinking him to be infected by some new weapon of God (or so ran the Duchess of Knives' initial lines), they disbelieved her rants about the Silver Legion as the ranting of a madman.

Her wings filled with corruption, the golden gleam disappeared, and in terror and confusion, Shaitan burst free of them and escaped.  He came across an important Ebon Legion Baron who was here on a diplomatic assignment and fell to her knees before the Ebon figure.  Baron Harakul was a female Slayer of reasonable renown who saw value in her abilities and skills and, best of all, believed Shaitan's words.  After all, Baron Harakul had already witnessed some of the Silver Legions' best experiments.  Why not benefit from it and deprive the other legion of their toy?

SHAITAN

The Squad Leader

Shaitan was given charge over a squad of 100 Fallen.  Due to his recalcitrant nature, these were hardly the best and the brightest.  Baron Harakul was willing to put up with some insubordination as sometimes those free thinkers create the perfect level of havoc among the enemy, but that didn't mean she could openly support such actions.  So Shaitan was given the recalcitrant, the cowardly, and the otherwise problematic Fallen who were generally of lower rank (i.e. Eminence 2 or lower) though there were a couple Fell Knights among them.

Some examples included Zaphriel (the cowardly reaper who spent a short time as Shaitan's lover since he was the one who could best empathise and comprehend Shaitan's plans), Remiel (the rebellious devil whom Shaitan groomed to be a living insult to the First House's arrogance), Kezekiel (the smug defiler whom Shaitan used for more diplomatic messages), and Haruta (a death dealing Scourge who was only in it for the joys of violence).

Shaitan kept them together through his quick wits, cunning words, and the fact that she was willing to accept more attitude from his people than most of the others.  If Shaitan's idea was bad, then you should tell him so and tell her why.  To do otherwise would be ridiculous.  You could do what you willed to any Loyalist Angels captured, but Shaitan kept a tight leash on what they could do to humans.  Sometimes that leash wasn't so tight as Shaitan felt things were best "Out of Sight, Out of Mind", but occasionally he would care and her previous lack of concern would be no protection against future offences.

Part 1 can be found here.
Part 2 to come.